This invention pertains in general to devices that are used to contain and drain water emissions from either accidental or actual operation of sprinkler heads of fire suppression systems.
Today many municipalities prudently mandate through their fire and building codes that buildings, both old and new construction, be outfitted with pressurized internal water sprinkler systems. These systems are intended to enhance occupant safety and to promote the public welfare through fire containment. While the most stringent requirements are placed on buildings that function as public gathering places, such as schools, churches, hospitals, performance centers and government structures, other buildings, such as commercial work places, factories, warehouses, high-rises, and multiple housing units, both residential and commercial, are also required to have sprinkler systems. As a result of this government action, water sprinkler systems are becoming a common presence in virtually every building, public and private that can accommodate large numbers of people.
The need for such water sprinkler systems in public buildings is well known. They contain the spread of or extinguish fires that may occur within the building. This purpose is accomplished, when the heat from a present fire triggers the affected sprinkler heads to cause them to release pressurized water within their system. The activated sprinkler heads then deliver into the affected areas of the building interior high volumes of water that are sprayed out to every corner of the facility by the sprinkler head to effect fire suppression.
It is the design of these systems to drown a fire inside of the building. During every minute of operation a single sprinkler head, and the entire system may contain hundreds if not thousands of these heads all located very near the ceiling at spaced intervals, tens of gallons of water. Beyond the extinguishing of fires, it is also well known that water introduced by the system can cause significant and costly damage to virtually any structure. As a result, buildings that have had their sprinkler systems activated, or just a single sprinkler head malfunction, can suffer both cosmetic and structural water damage.
In the case of a multiple story building, the operation of the sprinkler head on an upper floor, due to gravity, naturally causes water damage to the floors below as the expended water seeks to drain out of the building. Very often these buildings are not designed to drain the large volume amount of water introduced by the sprinkler making it highly likely that water will move into areas that are especially susceptible to damage.
Once activated, it is acknowledge that sprinkler systems can be particularly difficult to shut down quickly. In many cases a significant delay exists between the time that the need for the sprinkler system's operation has ceased and the time when the system is successfully shut down. Generally, sprinkler systems employ a water cut-off valve or a series of water cut-off valves that stop the water supply to the sprinkler system or portion thereof, thereby shutting down the sprinkler system. However, the locating and then operating this valve or the series of valves can prove to be very time consuming. Even greater time delays in effecting a shut down may be encountered when the valve or set of valves is not located within the general vicinity of an operating sprinkler head or the entire system. In other instances, the valve or set of valves may be located in a secured area accessible only to certain authorized building personnel, more often referred to as the "person with the key". During every minute of this delay water continues to course into the building interior. This water translates directly into costly damage.
The prior art discloses various attempts to containing and draining water form sprinkler heads to prevent damage to building.
In the United States patent issued to Hansel, U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,540, the invention is used during repairs or replacement being effected upon the sprinkler head. The invention used a sturdily constructed tube sock to be securely clamped upon the pressurized, non-operating sprinkler head to contain and drain any pressurized water released. This invention does not adequately address the problem of water containment and drainage with an operating sprinkler head. The device can not be quickly and easily placed onto the sprinkler head, nor is it quickly removed. Further, it is designed on to handle small amount of water, released from a pressurized system that has been shut down for repairs and is not in operation.
The United States patent issued to Rye, U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,193, discloses an invention specifically tasked to attempt to contain, channel and drain water from an activated sprinkler head. The Rye invention demonstrates a water containment and drainage device for an activated sprinkler head that is either ceiling or wall mounted. The device is a multi-piece pipe-like container that is assembled on site with an open collared aperture at one end and a hose at the other end. A telescopic pole is attached to the container, to lift and position the container near the activated sprinkler head. In operation, the operator using the pole lifts the invention so that a collared aperture of the device lines up with the operating sprinkler head. The container is pushed onto the sprinkler head so that such that sprinkler head is forced into the aperture and the container. The container collects the water spray and then channels it into an attached hose providing a conduit for the water to move away from the sprinkler and to a suitable drainage facility in the building such as sink, toilet, window or fire stairway. To facilitate its use for horizontally projecting sprinkler heads that are wall mounted, the container can be fitted with an elbow shaped tube at its aperture end.
The prior art however does not fully address problems unique to older buildings being retrofitted with water sprinkler systems. Many older buildings were never designed to have water sprinkler systems installed in the first place. As such, they were not created to have the physical spaces that are needed to ensure that a regular sprinkler system could be placed to ensure that once activated the system would be able to adequately discharge water so as to meet the minimum water coverage requirements necessary for effective fire suppression. To meet these code mandated minimum water coverage requirements, retrofitters have to sometimes place sprinkler heads in an odd position, at an odd angle, or at an odd location. Neither the Rye invention nor Hansel invention adequately addressees oddly mounted sprinkler heads that are found in sprinkler systems retrofitted in older buildings.
Hansel, U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,540, in being used for drainage of non-activated sprinkler heads, does not set forth a means for positioning and placing the device over an activated sprinkler head.
Rye, U.S. Pat. No. 5,344,193, is not adapted to be applied to sprinkler heads that are mounted in a wide variety of positions and locations in older buildings to allow the sprinkler system to meet water coverage mandates.
For ceiling mounted sprinkler heads, the Rye invention can handle those sprinkler heads which descend from the bottom of the sprinkler water supply pipe. However, in many exposed ceiling building such as warehouses or factories, the sprinkler heads are mounted on the top of the sprinkler water supply pipe. The Rye invention would not be able to accommodate such top mounted ceiling sprinklers since the sprinkler water supply pipe would prevent the Rye invention from properly enveloping the top mounted ceiling sprinkler head.
For wall mounted sprinkler heads, the Rye invention uses a fixed positioned elbow pipe adapter or a cup-shaped universal adapter (for different types of sprinkler heads) horizontally mounted (90 degree) sprinkler heads. Since the adapter is rigid, it could not be positioned easily to accommodate the oddly angled or positioned sprinkler heads that are becoming quite common, as older buildings become retrofitted with sprinkler systems.
Finally, post fire conditions in which the Rye invention would be used are generally not conducive to devices like the Rye on-site assembly or an operation of the multiple assembly invention. It would be not be easy to assemble a multi-piece equipment, selecting different attachments to go on the equipment in a dark, smoke filled, waterlogged (and hence slippery surfaced) room where an sprinkler system has be activated.